15 Antworten to “Der Europarat und die Beschneidung von Jungen”

… circumcision, an archaic ritual mutilation that has no justification whatever and no place in a civilized society.

Ashley Montagu (1905-1999), Anthropologist
Mutilated Humanity, 1991

The greatest crime against humanity is the torture and mutilation of children. Child abuse and neglect, particularly in its extreme forms, represents a form of torture and mutilation. Not commonly recognized as child abuse and neglect and a form of torture and mutilation is the ritual mutilation of genitals of children (male and female). One reason for the non-recognition of these crimes of genital mutilation and torture is their common occurrence and their support by religious and social traditions of various kinds. Another reason is the denial and/or indifference to the pain that is being inflicted upon these children.

Circumcision is obligatory upon men and women according to us (i.e. the Shafi’is). (Majmu’ of Imam An-Nawawi 1:164) The circumcision is wajib upon men and women according to the rājih qawl of Shāfiʿī madhhab. In a situation a woman is in her advanced age, it is not permissible to circumcise her if it may harm her (al-Rauḍah of Imam An-Nawawi: 3: 384).

What Lia didn’t know—what she said she was hearing for the first time in May 2004—was that her son didn’t want to be circumcised and was afraid to tell his father. She had to act fast.

… James, insisting that his son did want the procedure, submitted an affidavit from the boy’s doctor in support of his claim. James also argued that stopping him from having his son circumcised violated his own religious rights. …

James arrived in the courtroom with representatives from the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Their brief argued that a parent can’t lose custody just because he decided to have his child circumcised for religious reasons—and, furthermore, that a custodial parent is in fact obligated to make medical and religious choices for a child.

“The father’s decision can’t be trumped by the mother not liking it,” says Steve Freeman, legal affairs director for the Anti-Defamation League. “That would overturn a custody system in our nation that is long-standing and stable.” If Lia Boldt received custody on her claims, he argued, the courts would soon be clogged with battles over ear piercing and tonsil removal.

But what about the boy? Lia’s brief was accompanied by one prepared by Doctors Opposing Circumcision, which argued that her ex-husband’s religious rights shouldn’t outweigh his son’s inalienable rights. “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that parents can’t use their belief system to endanger or cause pain to a child,” says John Geisheker, the group’s executive director, who said the circumcision should wait until the boy turns 18 and can choose for himself. …

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that he didn’t need to wait until age 18 to make up his mind. It decided that the 14-year-old should be asked now what he wants.

Last April, at a hearing in the judge’s chambers of the Jackson County Circuit Court, the boy finally spoke for himself: He did not want to be circumcised. He also said he didn’t want to convert to Judaism, was afraid to tell his father how he felt, and was even afraid to continue living with him. It took five more months to resolve the custody issue, but finally, in September, the judge approved a settlement that James proposed and Lia accepted: The Boldts will have joint custody, with Lia as the primary parent and James receiving visitation. The main factor in their agreement: their son’s preference.

According to Dr Hinchcliffe, circumcision is not mentioned in the text of the Koran, but in the Sunna (the practice of the Prophet Mohammed), which is the second recognised source of law, it is strongly recommended, and sayings from the Prophet himself are cited in support of the practice. Thus although circumcision does not occupy a prominent place in the traditional texts of Islamic law, Muslims regard it as a necessity to fulfil their faith. That is certainly the father’s position.

In Islamic law, responsibility for ensuring that a male child is circumcised lies with his father, and Islam does not consider that it is a decision for the child to make for himself. The decision when to circumcise is also made by the father, and the evidence is that Muslim practice varies from locality to locality. According to Dr Hinchcliffe, some jurists assert that the father must ensure that the child is circumcised before puberty, whilst others state more precisely that the child should be circumcised on the seventh day after birth. The father himself was circumcised in Turkey when he was six or seven.

Dr Hasan describes circumcision of a boy as—

‘an obligatory duty which should preferably be done at a tender age which helps the wound to heal quickly. It is a father’s duty to carry it out as soon as possible. [If] he doesn’t do it while the child is still a minor, he would be failing in this duty.‚

Today we will continue yesterday’s discussion of the halakhic significance of the verse in Parashat Vayera, „Avraham circumcised his son, Yitzchak, when he was eight days old“ (21:4). As we saw, Chazal (Masekhet Kiddushin 29) derive from this verse that a father must circumcise his son. A different verse, in Parashat Lekh-Lekha – „Every male among you shall be circumcised“ (17:10), introduces the obligation cast upon the community at large, represented by the Bet-Din, to see to the child’s circumcision if the father fails to do so. Some Acharonim, as discussed yesterday, draw a critical distinction between these two obligations. The father’s mitzva, derived from Avraham’s having circumcised Yitzchak on his eighth day, is limited to the eighth day; thereafter, the father (at least as far as Torah law is concerned) bears no unique obligation. At this point, only the communal mitzva, derived from the verse at the end of Lekh-Lekha, applies.

LET BOYS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO BE CIRCUMCISED

Circumcision without a medical indication on a person unable to provide informed consent conflicts with basic principles of medical ethics, particularly because the operation is irreversible, painful and may cause serious complications. There are no health-related reasons to circumcise young boys in the Nordic countries. Arguments that may argue in favour of circumcision in adult men are of little relevance to children in the Nordic area. Boys can make up their own minds about the operation when they get old enough to provide informed consent.

As ombudsmen for children and experts in children’s health we consider circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, article 12, about children’s right to express their views about their own matters, and article 24, pt. 3, which says that children must be protected against traditional rituals that may be harmful to their health. In 2013, the UN Human Rights Council has urged all states to end operations that compromise the integrity and dignity of children and are prejudicial to the health of both girls and boys. We consider it central that parental rights in this matter do not have precedence over children’s right to bodily integrity. What is in children’s best interest must always come first, even if this may limit grown up persons’ right to carry out their religious or traditional rituals.

The Nordic ombudsmen for children and experts in children’s health therefore want to work towards a situation, where a circumcision can only be performed, if a boy, who has reached the age and level of maturity required to understand necessary medical information, consents to the operation. We wish a respectful dialogue among all parties involved about how to best ensure boys’ self determination with respect to circumcision. We also urge our governments to inform about children’s rights and health-related risks and consequences of the operation. We ask the Nordic governments to take the necessary steps towards ensuring that boys get the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be circumcised.

Oslo, 30th of September 2013

Signed by
Anne Lindboe, Norwegian ombudsman for children
Fredrik Malmberg, Swedish ombudsman for children
Maria Kaisa Aula, Finnish ombudsman for children
Per Larsen, Chairman of the Danish Children’s Council
Margrét Maria Sigurdardóttir, Icelandic ombudsman for children
Anja Chemnitz Larsen, Greenlandic Children’s spokesperson

as well as by representatives of Nordic associations of pediatricians and pediatric surgeons.

Reservation:
„The Islamic Republic of Iran is making reservation to the articles and provisions which may be contrary to the Islamic Shariah, and preserves the right to make such particular declaration, upon its ratification“.

Upon ratification:

Reservation:
„The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the international legislation in effect.“

Saudi Arabia 22

Reservation:
[The Government of Saudi Arabia enters] reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.

The “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue” launched by the Council of Europe in 2008 suggests that a widely shared effort in managing cultural diversity is needed and stresses the importance of the learning and teaching of intercultural competence. The 2010 Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education encourages Member States to promote educational approaches aimed at combating all forms of discrimination and violence.

In line with these instruments, the specific need to counter intolerance and discrimination against Muslims has been recognized by the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the UNESCO. To help states ensure that these commitments are given meaningful effect, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Humights, the Council of Europe, and UNESCO have worked together to develop these guidelines for educators to counter intolerance and discrimination against Muslims. These guidelines aim to assist educators in identifying manifestations of intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in schools and to provide suggestions on how to prevent and respond to this phenomenon.

We hope that the guidelines will be widely used in curriculum planning and development, and in pre-service and in-service training of teachers.

These Guidelines have been developed to support educators in countering intolerance and discrimination against Muslims. They are intended for a wide audience, including education policymakers and officials, teacher trainers, teachers, principals and head teachers, staff in teacher unions and professional associations, and members of NGOs. The Guidelines are relevant for both primary and secondary education and can also be used in non-formal education settings.

ISESCO experts to meet in Togo to develop girls’ and women’s education

The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) will hold a regional meeting on educational curricula development for girls and women, in Lomé, Togo, from 31 October to 3 November 2011. The meeting will bring together 25 education officials from the following ISESCO African Member States: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. Ms Mariama Ndiaye Niang, programmes specialist at the Education Directorate, will supervise this meeting on behalf of ISESCO.

Lay Down Your Arms
Bertha von Suttner
(the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the second to be awarded the Nobel Prize)
*

(…) For years, Norwegian politicians have used the prize to pursue their own ideas and purposes. Last year’s prize, which went to the European Union, the 2009 prize for US President Barack Obama, the 2010 prize for Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, the 2011 prize for Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf – almost all of the prizes awarded in the last two decades have failed to respect Nobel’s will. …

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has many opportunities that permit unopposed dissemination of a falsified version of Nobel’s visionary prize. When challenged to debate the purpose in public, in the media, they do not respond or they refuse to offer honest arguments; it is either silence or nonsense.

One can only conclude that the Norwegian awarders (parliament and the Nobel Committee) are adamantly unwilling to respect the law and Nobel’s intentions.

This experience affects my impression of Scandinavian democracy, of its media, public debate, and the integrity of our public authorities and the rule of law. It is a paradox of sorts that these are the very values that the Nobel Committee chair, Thorbjorn Jagland, has the primary responsibility for promoting in Europe as the secretary general of the Council of Europe.

The Norwegian government, always happy with the misuse of Nobel’s prize, is now seeking a new term for Jagland in the Council of Europe. When approached in the campaign for reelection, member countries should ask Jagland two vital questions.

First, does he acknowledge that by law a will is a binding legal instrument?

Second, what does he think about Nobel and does he understand that he intended his prize to support a new system of international relations, one without national armies? …

Thorbjørn Jagland, former prime minister and foreign minister of Norway, is secretary general of the Council of Europe and chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.

… One particularly important issue has been the protection of rights of religious minorities. Over the last few years, there has been a worrying trend across Europe—an increase in convictions for inciting hatred against Muslim communities and immigrants. Muslims and non-Muslims need to get to know each other much better. Both sides must recognize the great contribution that Islam has made, historically, to European culture, and the myriad ways Muslims contribute to the success and vibrancy of societies today.

Greater understanding starts with education. In 2010, I asked a group of nine experts, academics, and former politicians, under the leadership of former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, to identify the threats to open societies and to put forward recommendations about how we can live together. Those recommendations include that migrants should learn the languages of their host countries and that all states should extend the full rights and obligations of citizenship—including the right to vote—to as many of their residents as possible. The conclusion of that report is clear on two points: Our societies are very diverse, and we are not very successful in managing that diversity. The report was a first attempt to establish a debate among the 47 European states on how to transform diversity from a perceived threat to an unmistakable benefit.

It is important to underscore that religions are profound markers of identity. For Muslims and non-Muslims to understand one another, we need to deepen interreligious dialogue. We must debate the role of religion in our society, and we need to discourage the use of religion as a cover for extremism and intolerance.

We must also be culturally sensitive. …

Europe’s leaders have a responsibility to tell the truth to their citizens. Namely, that our pluralist and multicultural societies are here to stay. Europe has always been a continent of many religions and ethnic groups, but merely accepting the multicultural patchwork of our continent is not enough. We must embrace it. It is time for us to adapt and take advantage of our diversity. So I would say as Willy Brandt did: “Human rights must be for all. If not, they are for none.”

The chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee has dismissed concerns that one of this year’s three recipients, Tawakkul Karman of Yemen, represents a party directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Thorbjoern Jagland told reporters in Oslo this weekend that he disagrees with the “perception” widespread in the West that the Brotherhood is a threat to democracy.

“There are many signals that that kind of movement can be an important part of the solution,” he said. “We have included the Arab Spring in this prize, but we have put it in a particular context.

“Namely, if one fails to include the women in the revolution and the new democracies, there will be no democracy.”

Karman, 32 and a mother of three, is a leading member of Islah (Reform), Yemen’s main opposition movement. The movement is split into three wings: a tribal confederacy [die ganze Umma ist eine einzige Stammesföderation] led by the head of the powerful Al-Ahmar tribe; a political movement that operates under the Muslim Brotherhood banner [naja, so unpolitisch war Feldherr Mohammed nun wirklich nicht]; and a religious branch [ach, die anderen beiden Strömungen sind recht eigentlich gottlos?] linked to the worldwide Salafi movement [die Salafi wollen das urige Medina, den Echt-Islam].

The last of these is led by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a Sunni religious scholar and former adviser to Osama bin Laden who is considered a terrorist by the US. …

… Prize committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said it was also difficult to identify the leaders of the Arab Spring among the scores of activists who have spearheaded protests using social media.

„We have included the Arab Spring in this prize, but we have put it in a particular context,“ Jagland told reporters. „Namely, if one fails to include the women in the revolution and the new democracies, there will be no democracy.“

He called the oppression of women „the most important issue in the Arab World“ and stressed that the empowerment of women must go hand in hand with Islam.

(…)

He noted that Karman, 32, is a member of a political party linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement sometimes viewed with suspicion in the West. Jagland, however, called the Brotherhood „an important part“ of the Arab Spring.

„If they continue to spin these irrational fears, I’m afraid it could lead to a lot of commotion,“ said Thorbjørn Jagland, Norway’s parliamentary leader and former Labor prime minister, during a highly-attended religious debate in Oslo this week.

Some 500 people lined up around the block to hear Mr. Jagland, religious professor Torkel Brekke, the bishop of the Church of Norway, and leader of Norway’s Muslim Student Society discuss why religion is suddenly a hot topic.

The panelists discussed the recent media focus surrounding the hijab debate and blasphemy paragraph, the provocation caused by the burning of a hijab on International Women’s Day on March 8 by a Norwegian Muslim woman in protest of the garment, and fears among „religious nationalists“ and „secular intellectuals“ toward Norway’s Muslim minority.

„We could very well live with the mosques because they stayed in them. But when this began to affect our cultural values, then it became a conflict, and then it became politicized,“ Jagland told the crowd. „But Islam is not a threat to Norway.“ …

Norway’s biggest headache right now is not the financial crisis. Rather, the predominantly Christian nation is plagued by a religious dilemma over the right of a Muslim woman to wear a hijab as part of her police uniform.

The dilemma began last fall when a Norwegian Muslim woman petitioned for permission to wear her hijab, the traditional head covering for Muslim women, as part of her police uniform. Norway’s justice ministry originally decided in February to allow it, but revoked the permission a few weeks later after loud criticism from the police union, which argued it breached the neutrality of the uniform.

„A change of uniform regulations, with an allowance for covering hair, has never been a goal in itself. It has always been thought of as a possible means to increase the recruitment of police from minority groups in society,“ said Justice Minister Knut Storberget, in defense of his decision to revoke the initial permission.

Amid the heightened media attention and political backlash from his flip-flopping, the minister collapsed and subsequently announced a two-week sick leave, which was then extended.

The hijab debacle comes on the back of the minister’s other religious-related political defeat over a now-defunct blasphemy law. Mr. Storberget initially tried to replace the law with a new paragraph that would have protected individuals from defamatory religious statements. But after much political opposition, the law was repealed and no paragraph introduced.

After the official ceremony marking International Womens Day 2009 in Oslo, Sara Azmeh Rasmussen burned a hijab in front of the crowd.

–
–

Sooo viel Friedfertigkeit, mehr geht nur im Paradies oder Kalifat:

He was Vice-President of the Socialist International [2] and was Chair of the Organisation’s Board when Willy Brandt was President. Jagland also chaired its Middle East Committee for 10 years.[3] Furthermore, Jagland was one of five members of the Mitchell Committee[4] appointed by President Clinton and Secretary-General Kofi Annan to advise on how to end violence in the Middle East. Jagland is a Honorary Board member of the Peres Center for Peace[5] and was Chair of the Board of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights but left when he became Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Earlier this year, the Labour Party’s governing coalition suggested it would allow police officers to wear headscarves with their uniform, in the hope that it would attract more Muslim women to the police force.

But after widespread criticism of the proposal, the government dropped the idea.

On International Women’s Day in March, Syrian-born Sara Azmeh Rasmussen protested against headscarves by burning hers in public in the capital, Oslo.

Ms Jensen’s Progress Party has produced a list of special measures it says Muslims have requested to accommodate their religious sensitivities and traditions.

On top of changes to the police uniform, the list mentions prison inmates wanting Halal food, and parents of teenage girls demanding that schools separate their daughters from boys during sports lessons.

Most of her supporters say it is her hardline stand against Islamic values and rules that make her their favourite candidate.

In Norway, extreme Islamist activity is carried out by small groupsNorwegian Police Security Service
Hm, gehört Schariafreund Jagland auch zu diesen small groups?

And last month, senior members of the Labour Party called for a fight against radical Islam in Norway.

However, the former prime minister and Labour Party leader, Thorbjoern Jagland, called it an unnecessary fight that would only lead to confrontation.

While he argued that it was empty rhetoric, saying there was no radical Islam in Norway, the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) insists radical Islam does represent a threat. …

Islam Net is the largest[citation needed] Muslim organisation in Norway, founded by engineer student Fahad Qureshi in 2008. It has local chapters in Oslo, Akershus, Tromsø and Bodø, and is initiating a fifth in Trondheim. By 2011, the organisation had more than 1,400 paying members, centred around students.[1]

As a “moderate” Muslim group in Norway, Islam Net held a peace conference (!) to discuss and resolve the kafirs ‘naive’ misconceptions about Islam. … But Islam Net leader Fahad Qureshi denies that they will impose sharia in Norway.

I have been invited to Oslo, Norway along with Sh. Hussain Yee, ‘Abdur Raheem Green and Yusuf Chambers for a major Isalmic conference from 27th March until the 31th. My topics are: “In Search of Inner Peace,” “Da’wah in Desert Storm”, “Dajjal – Sign of the Last Hour”.

I would also like to thank Imam Mehboob ur-Rahman [Mahboub-ul-Rahman] and the Islamic Cultural Centre in Oslo for providing me with some of Mawdudi’s pamphlets and books in Urdu and other languages. I am also indebted to the Urdu librarian Abdul Hayee, Mohammad Siddique Seddon, and other staff of the Islamic Foundation in Markfield, UK

„We encourage you to give us district Greenland that we can control entirely even with their own ministers, border guards, police and legal systems governed by Sharia law, and prohibit the wickedness you stand for and that is against the laws of Allah.“

In the letter, the members of Ansar al-Sunna indicate that they do not wish to mix with infidels „and your filthy values and attitudes. You don’t respect your women, who strut around half-naked, and you let them behave in an immoral fashion. You permit the filthy sickness of homosexuality, which goes against nature….“ And so on. The authors of the letter then request that Norway hand over Grønland, a largely Muslim neighborhood in Oslo, so that they can govern it themselves, „with our own ministers, border guards, police, and legal system, run according to sharia laws, and forbid all the evil you stand for and that violates Allah’s laws.“ In short: „Cordon off the neighborhood and let us govern it as we wish….We don’t want to live together with filthy beasts [skitne udyr] like you [plural].“

Former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik has said the ideas of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish-Muslim scholar, and the activities of his movement are in complete harmony with the approach of The Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, which Bondevik currently heads. Bondevik yesterday paid a visit to the En Verden i Dialog (EVID, A World in Dialogue), an institute established jointly by Norwegians and Turkish immigrants in Norway, where he was briefed about the institute’s activities.

„I was impressed with all activities in all fields in the Gülen network. And I think many of his ideas are in full line with my own thinking and also with the strategies of The Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, where I am president. We both believe in dialogue, in respecting and trying to understand each other, in building bridges between main cultures and religions.

Currently there is high tension between the Islamic world and Western world. And increase of this tension could be dangerous and catastrophic. We must avoid that. And we must do this by bringing people together using dialogue instead of the rhetoric of war,“ he said.

Minhaj-ul-Quran Norway is the Norwegian branch of the Minhaj-ul-Quran International organisation based in Oslo. MQI established its centre in Norway and Denmark early in 1984. MQI has various community related projects which are supported by the Norwegian Government.

One of the main projects is the Minhaj conflict resolution or Minhaj Konfliktråd (MKR).

The Dean of Oslo Cathedral has described controversial Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi as “an important person” who Norwegians “should be open to” coming to the country.

… Oslo Cathedral’s Dean, Olav Dag Hauge, met al-Qaradawi in 2006 in Qatar as part of a meeting during the Muhammed cartoon scandal. While stating that he himself would not have invited the cleric to Norway, Hauge told Vårt Land that al-Qaradawi “is an important person for groups in the Islamic world, and also for some in Norway.” He suggested that “as a free country, we should be open to his coming here if he comes here in a lawful way and does not break the rules that we have set.”

The church leader added that it would be “important that he experience” the freedom of speech and freedom of the press seen in Norway, which had helped “Muslims in the Norway develop their own religion.” …

… It seems that the authors of the AAP report consider the foreskin to be a part of the male body that has no meaningful function in sexuality. However, the foreskin is a richly innervated structure that protects the glans and plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts. Recent studies, several of which were not included in the AAP report (although they were published within the inclusion period of 1995–2010), suggest that circumcision desensitizes the penis and may lead to sexual problems in circumcised men and their partners. In light of these uncertainties, physicians should heed the precautionary principle and not recommend circumcision for preventive reasons. …

There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because nontherapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm.

As the only non-European invited to this meeting, Dr. Goldman said, “I look forward to contributing to the effort to raise awareness about circumcision in Europe in light of its physical, sexual, and psychological harm.” … Other invited guests to the meeting include an official representative of the French Jewish community, a representative of the Muslim community from Turkey, and a medical professional from Germany.

European Circumcision Debate Will Include Jewish American Psychologist and Author Ronald Goldman Criticizes the Practice

BOSTON – January 7, 2014 – Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Circumcision Resource Center, a nonprofit educational organization in Boston, has been invited by the Council of Europe to participate in an interdisciplinary dialogue about circumcision at a meeting in France on January 28. …

A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and genitally intact men shows that the natural penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the natural penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.

In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the intact penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the intact penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim’s brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child’s brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

The Knesset is producing a short pro-circumcision documentary, to be filmed this week and shown in a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe next week.

On Monday, MK Nachman Shai (Labor) will represent Israel in the PACE Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, where he plans to screen the film.

German ex-MP Marlene Rupprecht, who pushed through a motion limiting ritual circumcision last year, invited four doctors to the committee. She also invited filmmaker Victor Schonfeld to present It’s a Boy, an anti-circumcision documentary he had produced.

“It’s a Boy is very bad for the Jewish tradition. Victor Schonfeld is a known anti-Zionist,” Shai said. “We demand equal time for our views.” …

The seven- to eight-minute short will also feature Israeli doctors who traveled to Africa to circumcise men in an effort to fight AIDS. …

Speaking with The Jerusalem Post on Monday, Conference of European Rabbis chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt expressed his concern that PACE “has not yet rescinded its position against circumcision,” but expressed hope that during next week’s debate “the members of PACE will reflect on their infringement of religious freedom, which is a fundamental value of the Council.”

Maren Lambrecht, a COE official, confirmed to the Post that it is procedurally impossible to cancel a previously passed resolution, but indicated that a special panel will examine the topic next week and that several medical experts and religious leaders will attend and present their views on the matter. While there will not be a formal decision taken at the end of this meeting, she said, the discussion is necessary due to the “harsh international debate” engendered by the 2013 resolution, among other reasons. …

A group of Israeli experts on performing circumcision have taught African women doctors to circumcise men to reduce the risk of HIV infection.

The effort is part of the Operation Abraham project headed by Dr. Inon Schenker.

This was revealed on Sunday in a report summarizing 18 months of activity by the project, which includes 14 African countries. Using local anesthetic, the female doctors – who had little experience in the operation – learned to remove the foreskins using only local anesthetics in a community clinic, even though the surgery was on adult men. At present, they perform some 100 of the operations every day.

The Israeli project has trained 17 medical teams at 13 hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.

Schenker, a veteran AIDS prevention specialist based in Jerusalem, said that each circumcision performed prevents five cases of HIV infection in a continent where AIDS is endemic.

Experts, Religious Leaders and Activists Square off at Council of Europe’s Circumcision Debate Today’s debate in Strasbourg, France at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, included medical experts, religious leaders and genital integrity activists.
Article | January 28, 2014 – 11:15am | By Jonathan Friedman

(New York, NY) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) held a debate on circumcision earlier today in Strasbourg, France in accordance with last year’s resolution recognizing circumcision as a violation of bodily integrity and calling for public discussion on the matter. Medical experts, religious leaders and activists were amongst those who gave testimony today.

Two films were screened preceding the Council of Europe’s debate on circumcision. The first film, It’s a Boy by Victor Schonfeld, is highly critical of circumcision, and follows a Jewish circumcision ceremony performed in London.

The second film was produced by the Israeli government—which has observer status—arguing that circumcision is an integral part of religious life for Jews. It was directed by Israeli Knesset member Nachman Shai who was present to express outrage at the 2013 PACE resolution recognizing male circumcision as a violation of bodily integrity. Mr. Shai said, “Circumcision has many medical advantages, and almost no medical disadvantages if done by experienced people, particularly if done at an early age.”

The previous chairperson of the Parliamentary Assembly, Marlene Rupprecht, began the discussion, saying, “Children’s rights are human rights. One basic right is physical integrity of a human being.”

Dr. Bernard Lobel, a French urologist, denied the harms of circumcision, saying, “I’ve never heard people complain about circumcision.” He touted the (debunked) benefits of circumcision, including protection against HIV/AIDS infections and UTIs.

He was followed by Mesrur Selçuk Silay, a Turkish doctor who argued in his presentation that the benefits of circumcision were proven, the harms non-existent. At one point he showed a slide of boys attending a forced circumcision party in Turkey, stating, “At the end of the day it’s one of the happiest days of their lives.”

Then, Dr. Wolfram Hartmann—President of the Professional Association of Child and Youth Doctors in Germany, which last year testified to the German Parliament in favor of a ban on circumcision—stated in his presentation that circumcision is a mutilation, and spoke about seeing firsthand the damages caused to young boys:

“Advocates of circumcision trivialize this form of mutilation which can lead to long-term physical or psychological complications.

“Accusing challenges to circumcision as being ‘anti-Semitic’ is misplaced. We do not take religion, race, sex… to intervene in the duties to our patients. I will not use medical knowledge to violate human rights or civil liberties.

“Young boys have the same legal claim to genital integrity as girls. Religious freedom ends where the physical integrity of a minor is impinged upon.”

Psychologist Dr. Ronald Goldman – founder of the Circumcision Resource Center and author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma – gave a 5-minute presentation pointing out the harms of circumcision:

“We are inflicting unrecognized harm. This harm is greater than not practicing circumcision. Many Jews in America and Israel support this view.

“First, there is the harm caused to infants. This is the reason there are so many studies to find a better way to perform circumcisions to cause less pain.

“Some infants do not cry because they go into shock. Other behavioral changes include altered sleep levels, disruption in feeding and bonding. Many studies have been performed on the detrimental effects of disrupting bonding. There’s an increased pain responses six months later. These are symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

“Multiple studies describe the sexual harm. Circumcision removes about 1/3 of the erogenous tissue, including several kinds of specialized nerves. Resulting in thickening and desensitization. Foreskin is a double layer, movable sleeve, 35 cm2. One man described sex before and after circumcision as going to ‘Seeing in black and white instead of seeing in color.’”

Christian Bahls—director of MOGiS e.V., an organization supporting victims of sexual abuse—stated, “As a trauma victim, I am deeply sympathetic with the feelings of people who feel troubled and anxious by the fact that this debate even takes place at all,” in an attempt to engage in a rational debate with those who came to defend circumcision. Describing what he’s learned through his work, he said,

“The men who have approached my organization have seen their circumcision as a mutilation… Of course men who have problems with circumcision will not report problems to a pro-circumcision urologist: they just do not want to get laughed at.”

Harald Winterling—with Intaktiv, an activist organization against genital mutilation—noted how victims are speaking up. “We’re seeing the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “99% of the harm is in adult life, in the loss of sexual sensitivity and function.”

Dr. Mattias Schroeder—a child neurologist and pediatrician from Germany—said, “Every week I see children who have temporary or lasting complications from circumcision at the child urology unit of a university hospital.”

Mr. Schonfeld was present in the audience and criticized the hypocrisy of religious freedom proponents.

In response to the Israeli film presented at the beginning of the session, Mr. Schonfeld said,

“I quote, ‘Israel will reject with all our might and force any attempt to stop circumcision.’”

“Circumcision is forced on children. Doctors across Europe are saying the harm is undeniable. The Israeli documentary denies any claims of pain.

“Freedom of conscience is not taken into account. Parents who choose not to circumcise are bullied. A woman in Israel was fined for not circumcising her son. This speaks volumes about the arrogance attached to the custom of circumcision.”

Many Jewish and Muslim individuals and leaders spoke about how important circumcision is to their religion, way of life, and existence, denying any harms of the practice, and arguing its purported health benefits. Many amongst them were outraged, often making references to the holocaust, and insinuated that the debate was motivated by anti-Semitism. One audience member even argued that the 2013 PACE resolution gave the go-ahead for bans to be put in place in Scandinavia.

Rupprecht closed the debate by stating, “It is the rights of the child that are foremost in our minds… I ask you to understand what motivates us.”

PACE is expected to vote soon on a new resolution initiated by the Israeli government that would protect the religious rights of parents to circumcise.

Jonathan Friedman is a New York City-based human rights activist. He holds a bachelor of science in engineering from The Cooper Union. Jonathan is the webmaster and newsletter editor for Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Projects Coordinator at foregen, a contributer to the Beyond the Bris Project, and participates in community volunteer projects in New York City.

::
::
::

Heute im Europarat!

Revised draft programmeChildren’s right to physical integrityHearing of experts on the circumcision of young boysfollowing the adoption of Resolution 1952 (2013) andRecommendation 2023 (2013) in October 2013
Tuesday 28 January 2014, from 2 pm to 3.30 pm
Room 1, Palais de l’Europe
Strasbourg

Exchange of views
with the participation of:

Professeur Bernard Lobel, Urologist, Professor at the Faculty of Medicine, Former Head of Department at the University Hospital Centre of Rennes, Member of the French Academy of Surgeons, France

Nearly 300 parliamentarians, religious leaders, medical doctors and civil society activists attended a major hearing on the question of circumcision of young boys held today on the margin of PACE’s Winter session in Strasbourg.

The hearing, streamed live over the web, was organised by PACE’s Social Affairs Committee following the October 2013 adoption of the Assembly’s resolution and recommendation on “children’s right to physical integrity”, and aimed to encourage the open debate on this subject called for by the Assembly.

Representatives of religious organisations and NGOs active in this field also spoke, as well as members of the Knesset, which holds observer status with PACE.

The 1995 television documentary “It’s a Boy” by British director Victor Schonfeld, as well as extracts from a new film putting forward the point of view of the Knesset observer delegation, were also screened prior to the hearing.

Medical associations in Sweden and Denmark have strongly recommended a ban on the non-medical circumcision of boys, reports the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The Sweden Medical Association, which counts 85% of the country’s physicians as members, recommended setting twelve as the minimum age for the procedure and requiring a boy’s consent in a resolution which was unanimously passed by the ethics council, reported the Svenska Dagbladet.

The Danish College of General Practitioners, a group with 3,000 members, made a statement that ritual circumcision of boys was tantamount to abuse and mutilation, according to Danish newspaper BT. They polled their readers and found that 87% were in favor of a ban on non-medical circumcision. …

In September 2013, the Child Rights International Network released a joint statement from the Nordic Ombudsmen for children and pediatric experts which said, “As Ombudsmen for Children and pediatric experts we are of the opinion that circumcision without medical indication is in conflict with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which addresses the child’s right to express his/her own views in all matters concerning him/her, and Article 24, point 3, which states that children must be protected against traditional practices that may be prejudicial to their health.” It was signed by representatives from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland. …

Erik Ullenhag, Sweden’s minister for integration, said that existing rules on circumcision would not be changed. “I have never met any adult man who experienced circumcision as an assault,” Ullenhag said, according to JTA. “The procedure is not very intensive and parents have the right to raise their children according to their faith and tradition.”

Sexual Contact
The intentional touching of a victim’s, defendant’s, or any other person’s intimate parts, or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of a victim’s, defendant’s or any other person’s intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.Segen’s Medical Dictionary.

Each Party shall ensure or promote, in accordance with its internal law, effective intervention programmes or measures for the persons referred to in Article 16, paragraphs 1 and 2, with a view to preventing and minimising the risks of repeated offences of a sexual nature against children.

– We are pleased that Høie has specified that the procedures should not be performed in the maternity ward, and they can happen at private hospitals. But we will continue to fight against this to be a public task and that the interventions can be performed on children who are too young to give consent,says Jan Petter Odden

CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark

Morten Frisch, Morten Lindholm and Morten Grønbæk

Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. …